The Man Between War and Peace: Admiral William Fallon

Fallon's 'No Iran War' Line Angered White House
March 8, 2008
Fallon's 'No Iran War' Line Angered White House
by Gareth Porter - IPS

A new article on CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon confirms that his public statements last fall ruling out war against Iran last fall were not coordinated with the White House and landed him in trouble more than once with President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

In an admiring article on Fallon in Esquire, former Pentagon official Thomas P.M. Barnett writes that Fallon angered the White House by "brazenly challenging" Bush on his aggressive threat of war against Tehran. Barnett also cites "well-placed observers" as saying Bush may soon replace Fallon with a "more pliable" commander.

Barnett's account, which quotes conversations with Fallon during the CENTCOM commander's trips to the Middle East, shows that Fallon privately justified his statements contradicting the Bush policy of keeping the "option" of an unprovoked attack on Iran "on the table" as necessary to calm the fears of Egypt and other friendly Arab regimes of a US-Iran war.

Barnett recalls that when Fallon was in Cairo in November, the lead story in that day's edition of the English-language daily Egyptian Gazette carried the headline "US Rules Out Strike against Iran" over a picture of Fallon meeting with President Hosni Mubarak.

That story, published Nov. 19 and not picked up by any US news media, reported that Fallon had "ruled out a possible strike against Iran and said Washington was mulling nonmilitary options instead."

Later that day, according to Barnett, Fallon told him during a coffee break in a military meeting, "I'm in hot water again," and then confirmed that his problems were directly with the White House.

That was the second time in less than a week and the third time in seven weeks that Fallon had publicly declared that there would be no war against Iran. In an interview with Al-Jazeera television in September, which Fallon himself had requested, according to a source at Al-Jazeera, he had said, "This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful."

And only a week before the trip to Egypt, in an interview with Financial Times, Fallon had said, a military strike was not "in the offing," adding, "Another war is just not where we want to go."

These statements represented an extraordinary exercise of power by a combat commander, because it contradicted a central feature of the Bush-Cheney strategy on Iran. High-ranking Bush administration officials had been routinely repeating the administration's line that no option had been taken "off the table" since early 2005.

At an Oct. 17 news conference, Bush said he had "told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Fallon's public statements explicitly ruling out an attack on Iran thus undermined the Bush administration's threat against Iran.

The willingness of the top commander in the Middle East to take the military option "off the table" was in part a reflection of the determination of uniformed military leaders to prevent what they regarded as a disastrous course.

The new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, who replaced Gen. Peter Pace in June, was even more candid about his opposition to the use of force against Iran than Pace had been, according to a Congressional staffer who had participated in private meetings with both. Pace declared publicly in late October, "We have to be mindful of the risks that would [be spawned] by engaging in a third conflict" in the region.

Mullen added, however, that military options "cannot be taken off the table."

But Fallon, as the commander responsible for the entire Middle East, was concerned about more than the consequences of actually exercising the military option. He was prompted to enunciate a "no-war" line on Iran by the panicky reactions of Arab states to what they thought were indications of the warlike intentions of Bush administration.

In the latter half of 2007 friendly Arab regimes were upset by the possibility of a US-Iran war, which they feared would destabilize the entire region. Fallon is quoted as telling Barnett, "t's all anyone wants to talk about right now. People here hear what I'm saying and understand. I don't want to get them too spun up."

Fallon told Barnett that his ruling out of military action against Iran was necessary to calm the very regimes the Bush administration was hoping to enlist to support its anti-Iran line. "Washington interprets this as all aimed at them," Fallon said in Cairo, according to Barnett. "Instead, it's aimed at governments and media in this region. I'm not talking about the White House."

Fallon was arguing, in effect, that it makes no sense to make the possibility of an unprovoked attack part of your declaratory policy if merely induces confusion and panic among friendly governments without influencing the target of the threat.

Barnett quotes Fallon as complaining that "they" - meaning White House officials - were asking him, "Why are you even meeting with Mubarak?" But Fallon strongly defended the diplomatic role he was playing in relations with Mubarak and other Middle Eastern leaders. "This is my center of gravity," Fallon told him. "This is my job."

Fallon's sensitivity to the political-diplomatic consequences of a declaratory policy that explicitly keeps open the threat of an aggressive war as a potential option set him apart not only from the White House but from the consensus among national security specialists in both parties. In early 2007, all three of the top three Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination publicly declared their support for keeping "all options on the table."

Fallon is not the first CENTCOM commander to rein in aggressive White House policy toward the Middle East. In late 1997, according to Dana Priest's book, The Mission, the Bill Clinton White House wanted CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony Zinni to order his pilots to provoke a military confrontation with Iraq in the no-fly zone by deliberately drawing fire from Iraqi planes.

The request for such a provocation was conveyed to Zinni by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Ralston. But Zinni, who believed that it could lead to an unwanted war with Iraq, insisted that a formal request from the White House would have to be sent, and the plan was dropped.

The unhappiness of the Bush administration with Fallon's role as well as the unflattering picture of administration policy revealed by the article was evident Thursday from the failure of either the White House or the Pentagon to issue the usual reassuring statements in response to the article.

The White House declined to comment, although, according to the Washington Post's Thomas Ricks, the article "was being discussed there." The Pentagon spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates "has read the profile on Admiral Fallon but chooses not to comment on it or other press accounts."

0 Replies

I meant to thank you for the link earlier. Excellent article.

0 Replies

engineer

engineer wrote:

I meant to thank you for the link earlier. Excellent article.

I hope the information was useful.

What kind of engineer are you? I've know lots of engineers. The most interesting were atomic energy engineer (great love of my life), space engineer (friend), mechanical (friend), and one women engineer friend.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: engineer

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

.

What kind of engineer are you? I've know lots of engineers. The most interesting were atomic energy engineer (great love of my life), space engineer (friend), mechanical (friend), and one women engineer friend.

BBB

An interesting quote. I have a general idea as to what what atomic energy, space, and mechanical engineers do, but what does a women engineer do?

0 Replies

Re: engineer

flyboy804 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
.

What kind of engineer are you? I've know lots of engineers. The most interesting were atomic energy engineer (great love of my life), space engineer (friend), mechanical (friend), and one women engineer friend.

BBB

An interesting quote. I have a general idea as to what what atomic energy, space, and mechanical engineers do, but what does a women engineer do?

She was in college at the time I met her and I've forgotten which engineering field she got her degree in, but I think it was mechanical. I know she was interested in city planning. She was one of the rare women in a customary male occupation and it was not easy for her to be accepted.

I also had a close engineer friend who specialized in springs. He had his own comany and invented several types of springs.

BBB

0 Replies

Fallon Resigns As Mideast Military Chief
Fallon Resigns As Mideast Military Chief
March 11, 2008 at 03:59 PM

"The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East resigned Tuesday amid speculation about a rift over U.S. policy in Iran," the AP reports.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Adm. William J. Fallon had asked for permission to retire and that Gates agreed. Gates said the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon's and that Gates believed it was "the right thing to do."

Fallon was the subject of an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy. It described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

Fallon, who is traveling in Iraq, issued a statement through his U.S. headquarters in Tampa, Fla.

"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," Fallon said.

"And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," Fallon added.

Gates described as "ridiculous" any notion that Fallon's departure signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran. And he said "there is a misperception" that Fallon disagrees with the administration's approach to Iran.

"I don't think there were differences at all," Gates added.

As ThinkProgress notes, Fallon opposed the "surge" in Iraq and has consistently battled the Bush administration to avoid a confrontation with Iran, calling officials' saber-rattling "not helpful." Privately, he vowed that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch."

A blockbuster Esquire article published last week predicted that Fallon would be removed to make way for a general who was more "pliable" to war with Iran:

If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it'll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man. He is that rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance. His name is William Fallon, although all of his friends call him "Fox," which was his fighter-pilot call sign decades ago. [...]

Just as Fallon took over Centcom last spring, the White House was putting itself on a war footing with Iran. Almost instantly, Fallon began to calmly push back against what he saw as an ill-advised action. Over the course of 2007, Fallon's statements in the press grew increasingly dismissive of the possibility of war, creating serious friction with the White House.

Last December, when the National Intelligence Estimate downgraded the immediate nuclear threat from Iran, it seemed as if Fallon's caution was justified. But still, well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) quickly released a statement: "I am concerned that the resignation of Admiral William J. Fallon, commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East and a military leader with more than three decades of command experience, is yet another example that independence and the frank, open airing of experts' views are not welcomed in this Administration."

More from AP:

Fallon has had a 41-year Navy career. He took the Central Command post on March 16, 2007, succeeding Army Gen. John Abizaid, who retired. Fallon previously served as commander of U.S. Pacific Command.

President Bush issued a statement saying that Fallon "has served our Nation with great distinction for forty years. He is an outstanding sailor -- and he made history as the first naval officer to serve as commander of Central Command. "

Gates said that until a permanent replacement is nominated and confirmed by the Senate, Fallon's place will be taken by his top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey.

The secretary called Fallon a very able military strategist and said his advice will be missed at the Pentagon.

"I think this is a cumulative kind of thing," said Gates, speaking of the circumstances leading up to Fallon's decision. "It isn't the result of any one article or any one issue."

"As I say, the notion that this decision portends anything in terms of change in Iran policy is, to quote myself, 'ridiculous,' " he said.

0 Replies

Re: engineer

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

engineer wrote:
I meant to thank you for the link earlier. Excellent article.

I hope the information was useful.

What kind of engineer are you? I've know lots of engineers. The most interesting were atomic energy engineer (great love of my life), space engineer (friend), mechanical (friend), and one women engineer friend.

BBB

I'm a chemical engineer with a Navy nuclear background and you are welcome to add me to your list. If you can get an electrical and a civil, you'll have a full set!

0 Replies

Re: Fallon Resigns As Mideast Military Chief

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Fallon Resigns As Mideast Military Chief
March 11, 2008 at 03:59 PM

"The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East resigned Tuesday amid speculation about a rift over U.S. policy in Iran," the AP reports.

Tragic, but not unexpected.

0 Replies

This is from March 6, but valuable...

Quote:

Commander Rejects Article of Praise

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 6, 2008; Page A03

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East is the subject of a glowing magazine article describing him as the only person who might stop the Bush administration from going to war against Iran.

Esquire magazine's forthcoming profile of Adm. William "Fox" Fallon portrays the chief of the U.S. Central Command as "brazenly challenging" President Bush on Iran, pushing back "against what he saw as an ill-advised action."

Written by Thomas P.M. Barnett, a former professor at the Naval War College, the article in the magazine's April issue predicts that if Fallon leaves his position at Central Command, "it may well mean that the president and vice president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way."

The article is written in an admiring fashion, praising Fallon as "a man of strategic brilliance" whose understanding of the tumultuous situation in Pakistan "is far more complex than anyone else's."

Asked about the article yesterday, Fallon called it "poison pen stuff" that is "really disrespectful and ugly." He did not cite specific objections.

Barnett said he has not heard from Fallon about the article.

The White House declined to comment, but administration insiders said the article was being discussed there yesterday. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said, "Secretary [of Defense Robert M.] Gates has read the profile on Admiral Fallon but chooses not to comment on it or other press accounts."

Fallon clearly cooperated with Barnett for the article, with the author accompanying the Centcom chief on trips to Egypt and Afghanistan over the past year. The article quotes Fallon as saying one day in Cairo that "I'm in hot water again" with the White House, apparently for telling Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that the United States would not attack Iran.

Fallon has previously made it clear he has differences with the Bush administration's foreign policy. Some White House aides were said to be unhappy with his decision to dump "the long war" as a phrase to describe U.S. efforts against terrorism. In addition, some White House officials were irked by the persistent friction between him and Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Fallon and Petraeus are known to have disagreed about plans and troop levels in Iraq, but Petraeus, even though technically subordinate to Fallon, appears to have more influence with Bush.

Asked about his dealings with Petraeus, Fallon said in a December interview, "That stuff is all overblown. . . . We talk daily." He added, "Dave does internal Iraq. I do the region."

Fallon, a career naval aviator and one of the last Vietnam War veterans on active duty, took over as chief of the Central Command in March 2007, becoming the first Navy officer ever to hold that post. Conservatives have been critical of him for years, faulting him for taking what they considered a dovish stance on China in his previous position of U.S. military commander in the Pacific. Their antagonism has deepened over the past year. "You heard negative things about him almost from the moment he was named, and the chorus has been almost unrelieved," said Tom Donnelly, a hawkish defense expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

As he was preparing to take command, Fallon said that a war with Iran "isn't going to happen on my watch," according to retired Army Col. Patrick Lang.

Lang, a former analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency, said in an interview that he asked Fallon how he would avoid such a conflict. "I have options, you know," Fallon responded, which Lang interpreted as implying Fallon would step down rather than follow orders he considers mistaken.

In the December interview, Fallon disputed the precise wording of the exchange. "That's privileged information," he said at first, later adding, "I can't imagine making a statement like that." He then recalled simply telling Lang that attacking Iran "wasn't the first course of action" under consideration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503059.html?hpid=topnews

0 Replies

The Man Between War and Peace: Admiral William Fallon

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know